Motorcycle helmet laws...where do you stand?

[Ruptga]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: ADDAvenger
Exactly, representative democracy =/= meritocracy, hence the different names. It's a step in that direction, but they aren't the same thing.

A real meritocracy would mean people apply for a position, are interviewed, put through a battery of both paper and real-world/hands-on tests, and then the one that comes out of that on top is your new (insert office here). As it is, we have common people voting on what they think is important: who has the nicer butt, what religion they hold, how much pork they're promising their county/state, and other such stupid/irrelevant criteria. It's true, the candidates are being decided upon by their merits, it's just that the average person doesn't know enough to ask the right questions. The one thing I'm not sure of is who/what would generate the first test questions and scenarios; in time those positions would be filled though the same method, but the cycle has to start somewhere.

So how come J-Lo isn't President then?

Or me? I got a great ass AND can promise pork all day. 😉

What aren't I President? Maybe there is a meritocracy to the selection process? Huh?

I'm not sure if you're just ignorant of the political process or just trying to continue pushing your agenda that the average person is stupid but thank God! you know what's best!

"The cycle" you want to start is the slippery slope of authoritarianism. The end result would be something like the medieval Catholic church. Only "learned scholars" are allowed positions of authority and the stupid people do what they're told for their own good or else God will damn their souls.

Well yeah it could turn into all sorts of bad things, but if I were a serious philosopher and not just a college student with a little too much free time ( 😉 ) I would spend a lot of time figuring out all sorts of checks and balances.

And my agenda isn't quite that the average person is stupid; people are illogical, for various reasons we do stupid things all the time (think Joe Sixpack buying Monster cables down at Circuit City). My basic idea is that things would work better if our decision makers weren't just popular people with powerful friends that are good at running a country, I'd really like it if our decision makers were people that are known to be really freakin' good at running a country before they have a chance to screw things up by actually being in office. There has to be something better than representative democracy, or are you going to tell me we've already figured it all out after only some 6000 years of recorded history? So sue me for speculation 😛

Edit: this is getting awfully P&N-ish, so you can counterpoint if you like, but I won't respond to it

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: ADDAvenger
Exactly, representative democracy =/= meritocracy, hence the different names. It's a step in that direction, but they aren't the same thing.

A real meritocracy would mean people apply for a position, are interviewed, put through a battery of both paper and real-world/hands-on tests, and then the one that comes out of that on top is your new (insert office here). As it is, we have common people voting on what they think is important: who has the nicer butt, what religion they hold, how much pork they're promising their county/state, and other such stupid/irrelevant criteria. It's true, the candidates are being decided upon by their merits, it's just that the average person doesn't know enough to ask the right questions. The one thing I'm not sure of is who/what would generate the first test questions and scenarios; in time those positions would be filled though the same method, but the cycle has to start somewhere.

So how come J-Lo isn't President then?

Or me? I got a great ass AND can promise pork all day. 😉

Why aren't I President? Maybe there is a meritocracy to the selection process? Huh?

I'm not sure if you're just ignorant of the political process or just trying to continue pushing your agenda that the average person is stupid but thank God! you know what's best!

"The cycle" you want to start is the slippery slope of authoritarianism. The end result would be something like the medieval Catholic church. Only "learned scholars" are allowed positions of authority and the stupid people do what they're told for their own good or else God will damn their souls.

You know, I was talking with a friend of mine today (he grew up in Europe-Serbia IIRC) and he was telling me how strict the licensing process is in Europe compared to here in the states. Funny thing is, more people ride motorcycles in Europe for transportation but there are fewer fatalities. He said the licensing process is much more stringent and you are restricted for the first year to a bike that is under 300cc engine size. The following year you can go up to say a 500cc bike and after that you can go up to 1000cc. I don't think that's a loss of freedom, I think it's common sense. Same with helmet laws.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
You know, I was talking with a friend of mine today (he grew up in Europe-Serbia IIRC) and he was telling me how strict the licensing process is in Europe compared to here in the states. Funny thing is, more people ride motorcycles in Europe for transportation but there are fewer fatalities. He said the licensing process is much more stringent and you are restricted for the first year to a bike that is under 300cc engine size. The following year you can go up to say a 500cc bike and after that you can go up to 1000cc. I don't think that's a loss of freedom, I think it's common sense. Same with helmet laws.

You're arguing apples and oranges. I'm fully in favor of stricter licensing processes, for both motorcycles and cars. Driving is a privilege, and that protects the other people on the road.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
You know, I was talking with a friend of mine today (he grew up in Europe-Serbia IIRC) and he was telling me how strict the licensing process is in Europe compared to here in the states. Funny thing is, more people ride motorcycles in Europe for transportation but there are fewer fatalities. He said the licensing process is much more stringent and you are restricted for the first year to a bike that is under 300cc engine size. The following year you can go up to say a 500cc bike and after that you can go up to 1000cc. I don't think that's a loss of freedom, I think it's common sense. Same with helmet laws.

You're arguing apples and oranges. I'm fully in favor of stricter licensing processes, for both motorcycles and cars. Driving is a privilege, and that protects the other people on the road.

I disagree. Stricter licensing requirements, for the most part, really benefits the rider the most. Same with helmet laws.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
You know, I was talking with a friend of mine today (he grew up in Europe-Serbia IIRC) and he was telling me how strict the licensing process is in Europe compared to here in the states. Funny thing is, more people ride motorcycles in Europe for transportation but there are fewer fatalities. He said the licensing process is much more stringent and you are restricted for the first year to a bike that is under 300cc engine size. The following year you can go up to say a 500cc bike and after that you can go up to 1000cc. I don't think that's a loss of freedom, I think it's common sense. Same with helmet laws.

You're arguing apples and oranges. I'm fully in favor of stricter licensing processes, for both motorcycles and cars. Driving is a privilege, and that protects the other people on the road.

I disagree. Stricter licensing requirements, for the most part, really benefits the rider the most. Same with helmet laws.

Spin much?

If we had no helmet laws, who would be harmed? The idiots who wouldn't wear their helmets.

If we had no (or very lax, like we already do) licensing requirements, who would be harmed? The other drivers on the road.

Let's not even get into the fact that you're comparing a highly personalized system of licensing with one-size-fits-all helmet laws.

Look, wear your own helmet and shut up.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
You know, I was talking with a friend of mine today (he grew up in Europe-Serbia IIRC) and he was telling me how strict the licensing process is in Europe compared to here in the states. Funny thing is, more people ride motorcycles in Europe for transportation but there are fewer fatalities. He said the licensing process is much more stringent and you are restricted for the first year to a bike that is under 300cc engine size. The following year you can go up to say a 500cc bike and after that you can go up to 1000cc. I don't think that's a loss of freedom, I think it's common sense. Same with helmet laws.

You're arguing apples and oranges. I'm fully in favor of stricter licensing processes, for both motorcycles and cars. Driving is a privilege, and that protects the other people on the road.

I disagree. Stricter licensing requirements, for the most part, really benefits the rider the most. Same with helmet laws.

Spin much?

If we had no helmet laws, who would be harmed? The idiots who wouldn't wear their helmets.

If we had no (or very lax, like we already do) licensing requirements, who would be harmed? The other drivers on the road.

Let's not even get into the fact that you're comparing a highly personalized system of licensing with one-size-fits-all helmet laws.

Look, wear your own helmet and shut up.

Talk about spin...are you dizzy? Tougher licensing requirements would really benefit riders more than anyone else on the road by far...and also cost them more initially. Show me one instance of a motorcycle rider impacting a car where the driver of the car came off worse...or injured at all (I'm sure there are such instances but I'm betting they are very very few and far between).

As for one-size-fits-all helmet laws, do you have some unique proposal for individualized helmet laws? 😕

Truth is everyone talks up ideals and principles but they conveniently ignore the real benefits of these laws. People bring up the slippery slope all the time and point to gun control but really that's comparing apples to oranges since gun control doesn't really do anything to reduce crime but wearing a helmet when riding a motorcycle really does increase your chances of survival in an accident. It's not just some feel good bullshit. IT'S A FACT!!!

Yeah, I look at people riding a motorcycle with nothing but a t-shirt and shorts on with a bit of disdain...I guess that makes me an elitist. Still, when people start out riding motorcycles and they don't have the benefit of decent training or instruction they don't fully grasp the dangers involved. They largerly learn by doing, and if they see everyone else riding without helmets and proper safety gear they are more likely to do the same. Does that make them stupid? Or worthy of a Darwin award? Or worth less compassion? I don't think so.

Many times, especially on a motorcycle, your first real experience of learning comes when you fuck up...that's a really bad time to figure out that you should be wearing a helmet IMO.

 

[SirPorl]

If someone wants to ride their motorcycle without a helmet, I say let them. I don't give a rats ass what they wear, what they ride, or any of that. I wear one because I like idea of trying to protect my melon. It keeps bugs and stuff off my face.

 

[d33pt]

i feel really weird without a helmet. even riding down the block to testride a bike. my buddy thought i was weird asking for a helmet today when i was testing out his rebuilt bike around the neighborhood. the way i see it, it doesn't take much to take out your head. even falling down at 5mph could potentially kill you. that's not the way i want to go out.

 

[NinjaGnome]

I am a rider and I wear my helmet all the time. There is no law here that you have to wear one but I Always have it on. I do not support a law to require helmets because if someone is too cool to wear one then thats thier problem. Insurance companies can regulate it by providing no medical coverage if you are found not wearing a helmet if they want though.

 

[OCNewbie]

I don't believe anyone should be forced to practice any particular personal safety practices if the negative outcome would only directly affect that individual. So I do not support mandatory helmet laws. I think it's pretty stupid to ride without a helmet in almost all scenarios, but if someone wants to live on the edge, or just feel the wind in their hair, or whatever their reasoning... I think they alone should be responsible to make that call.

 

[jdoggg12]

Yes, i think the helmet law should be mandatory. If for no other reason to protect the people that dont now any better. Some people just dont understand the dangers of riding even the smallest of bikes.

Gear saved my life, i was/am a track rider who got a little stupid on the street and almost paid the ultimate price. My helmet saved my life and my racing suit saved my skin. But nothing can save your bones/nerves when you hit something.

http://i12.photobucket.com/alb...doggg1/Mehospital6.jpg
http://i12.photobucket.com/alb...9/jdoggg1/kneeside.jpg
http://i12.photobucket.com/alb...19/jdoggg1/forearm.jpg
http://i12.photobucket.com/alb...9/jdoggg1/scan0009.jpg
http://i12.photobucket.com/alb...9/jdoggg1/scan0004.jpg
http://i12.photobucket.com/alb...9/jdoggg1/scan0003.jpg



Ride safe and wear your gear guys!

 

[Captante]

Originally posted by: hanoverphist

Originally posted by: slayer202
for the most part I support the law, but I can see why someone might not want to wear a helmet on a quick 2 minute drive, especially in a quiet town.

my stepdads friend did just that... he and 2 friends drove 3 blocks to show another friend a new bike, didnt wear his helmet. as he was leaving, the bike lurched somehow (im sure it was operator error) and threw him off to the rear of the bike, where he landed on the curb with the back of his head. died instantly, in front of his friends, friends kids and a few people in the neighborhood that had come over to chat. this is a guy that always wore his helmet on runs and such, not sure why he decided a 3 block ride was less deserving.

The father of one of my daughters friends was riding in Florida last year & because he was "only going around the block" he skipped wearing his helmet ... he slid a little on some sand at less then 20 mph, fell off & banged his head on the asphalt ... died on the way to the hospital from an accident he would almost certainly have walked away from had he been wearing his helmet & in the process left his two daughters fatherless.



(1) Yes ... been riding for over 20 years.

(2) I live in Connecticut which has no helmet law & I always wear mine.

(3) On the fence ... Over the years I've seen (and witnessed) several of my friends die on motorcycles and all of them wern't wearing helmets, even so I have a problem with laws that take away our freedom. I would support no-helmet required laws provided all minors were required to wear them and in addition if anyone who chose to ride without one had to pay considerably higher insurance premiums.

Originally posted by: d33pt
i feel really weird without a helmet. even riding down the block to testride a bike. my buddy thought i was weird asking for a helmet today when i was testing out his rebuilt bike around the neighborhood. the way i see it, it doesn't take much to take out your head. even falling down at 5mph could potentially kill you. that's not the way i want to go out.

:thumbsup:

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: Captante

Originally posted by: hanoverphist

Originally posted by: slayer202
for the most part I support the law, but I can see why someone might not want to wear a helmet on a quick 2 minute drive, especially in a quiet town.

my stepdads friend did just that... he and 2 friends drove 3 blocks to show another friend a new bike, didnt wear his helmet. as he was leaving, the bike lurched somehow (im sure it was operator error) and threw him off to the rear of the bike, where he landed on the curb with the back of his head. died instantly, in front of his friends, friends kids and a few people in the neighborhood that had come over to chat. this is a guy that always wore his helmet on runs and such, not sure why he decided a 3 block ride was less deserving.

The father of one of my daughters friends was riding in Florida last year & because he was "only going around the block" he skipped wearing his helmet ... he slid a little on some sand at less then 20 mph, fell off & banged his head on the asphalt ... died on the way to the hospital from an accident he would almost certainly have walked away from had he been wearing his helmet & in the process left his two daughters fatherless.



(1) Yes ... been riding for over 20 years.

(2) I live in Connecticut which has no helmet law & I always wear mine.

(3) On the fence ... Over the years I've seen (and witnessed) several of my friends die on motorcycles and all of them wern't wearing helmets, even so I have a problem with laws that take away our freedom. I would support no-helmet required laws provided all minors were required to wear them and in addition if anyone who chose to ride without one had to pay considerably higher insurance premiums.

Originally posted by: d33pt
i feel really weird without a helmet. even riding down the block to testride a bike. my buddy thought i was weird asking for a helmet today when i was testing out his rebuilt bike around the neighborhood. the way i see it, it doesn't take much to take out your head. even falling down at 5mph could potentially kill you. that's not the way i want to go out.

:thumbsup:

See, that's the kind of bullshit a helmet law would eliminate. You go out for a quick ride around the block, or down to your local hangout which is only a couple miles away...I don't need a helmet for that. You just never know. 🙁

 

[natto fire]

I know we have some "special" people here, but there are seriously more than twice the people that wear a helmet to the ones who actually ride a motorcycle? More power to them, I guess, I know there have been plenty of times I wish I had a helmet, but to wear it all the time seems kind of embarrassing.

As for the law: I am against any law that limits freedoms without doing any good to protect the freedoms of others. Ergo, I do not like mandatory helmet laws.

 

[jdoggg12]

Originally posted by: Captain Howdy
but to wear it all the time seems kind of embarrassing.

I've been in the motorcycle community for over 10 years, i've NEVER met someone that thought the guy wearing a helmet looked more like a tool than the guy without one

 

[zixxer]

I ride, and I always wear a helmet - it is the law, but I would even if it wasn't.

IMO if you don't have insurance it should be required by law - optional if you have medical insurance.

 

[natto fire]

Originally posted by: jdoggg12

Originally posted by: Captain Howdy
but to wear it all the time seems kind of embarrassing.

I've been in the motorcycle community for over 10 years, i've NEVER met someone that thought the guy wearing a helmet looked more like a tool than the guy without one

Sorry, I meant the people that do not ride a motorcycle and wear a helmet, according to the poll anyways. Hence me making the "special" people comment. 😉

 

[imported_Imp]

Originally posted by: Captain Howdy

Originally posted by: jdoggg12

Originally posted by: Captain Howdy
but to wear it all the time seems kind of embarrassing.

I've been in the motorcycle community for over 10 years, i've NEVER met someone that thought the guy wearing a helmet looked more like a tool than the guy without one

Sorry, I meant the people that do not ride a motorcycle and wear a helmet, according to the poll anyways. Hence me making the "special" people comment. 😉

lol

Some people go around wearing full-armour textile, leather, racing-replica jackets with no bike... guess the helmet completes the illusion😉.

 

[thomsbrain]

If motorcyclists are willing to pay a special tax with the yearly registration of their bike that supports emergency services and hospitals and are also willing to pay additional health insurance premiums, then I will gladly support their choice to ride without a helmet.

In short, as long as money comes out of my pocket because of someone else's choice to not protect themselves, then I need the helmet law to protect ME from THEM.

 

[thomsbrain]

Originally posted by: SphinxnihpS

Originally posted by: dudeman007

Originally posted by: blackdogdeek
i used to ride a motorcycle. in NY/NJ i would wear a helmet. in CT, i would sometimes NOT wear a helmet.

i don't support mandatory helmet laws. i should be able to choose whether or not i risk my own life needlessly.

It's not just your choice when your huge ass medical bill gets sent out to all tax paying americans.

...and you probably support socialist healthcare too. Either you do, or you are a walking political contradiction.

404 Logic Not Found.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: thomsbrain

In short, as long as money comes out of my pocket because of someone else's choice to not protect themselves, then I need the helmet law to protect ME from THEM.

And this, folks is why socialism is anathema to freedom.

The US taxpayer is an oppressive parent. As long as they pay, they will gleefully vote away all your freedoms they may see as a "risk."

 

[Safeway]

Mandatory, just like seat belts.

 

[imported_Lathspell]

They should be mandatory. One should be able to choose to risk his life if he wants to. It's just one of the laws made necessary to protect stupid people. If in a country there is such an ample problem with bikers not being able to tell if they really need a helmet or not, then the law is a bliss, but I still think it should be your choice. And I don't really see this obsession with the taxpayers in the US. You pay those money either way. What do you care where they go to? You don't pay extra for every guy who hits his head when driving a bike with no helmet on...do you?

 

[sdifox]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sdifox

Originally posted by: Amused
Um, no. The main job of OUR government is to protect individual rights and freedoms. They are merely to PROMOTE the general welfare, not provide it or force it upon us.

You cannot have individual rights and freedoms if a government seeks to protect you from yourself. With freedom comes risk. Take away the risk and you have taken away the freedom.

I do not want, or need you, or a government telling me what is best for me. I am best suited to determine that no matter what the elitists may think.

I guess that is why I live in Canada.

Why? Did they void the Canadian Constitution or are you full of it?

If we must have authoritarian style government power, I believe that it should first be concentrated in the type of political/civics ignorance that you so clearly represent here. We should, for example, pass a law making it illegal to believe that just because you do something that makes you feel self-important that you become compelled to believe that everyone else should be forced by law to do the same thing. For example, if you see the wisdom in wearing a motorcycle helmet, that everyone else must do the same thing. Or if you find some religion, that everyone else has to join that religion too or they might *GASP* lose their souls...
Oh wait... we already have those! They're called "rights!" OMG.

:roll:

Nothing to do with that, I am referring to the fact that we do care about our fellow citizen whether they are stupid or not. That is the difference. Has nothing to do with self importance, more to do with the people decided that is the right thing to do, hence it became law. You know, like how democracy is supposed to work?

 

[KK]

Originally posted by: Lathspell
They should be mandatory. One should be able to choose to risk his life if he wants to. It's just one of the laws made necessary to protect stupid people. If in a country there is such an ample problem with bikers not being able to tell if they really need a helmet or not, then the law is a bliss, but I still think it should be your choice. And I don't really see this obsession with the taxpayers in the US. You pay those money either way. What do you care where they go to? You don't pay extra for every guy who hits his head when driving a bike with no helmet on...do you?

Yeah, and if they are so worried about the costs increasing because of no helmets, then they should be all for banning motorcycles outright since that would save them even more money by their thoughts.